ACCELR8 TECHNOLOGY: CO Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------United States District Court for the District of Colorado Federal Judge John L. Kane granted final approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed against Accelr8 Technology Corporation and:

(1) Thomas V. Geimer,

(2) Harry J. Fleury, and

(3) James Godkin

The consolidated suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, relating to the Company's accounting and public disclosure from October 1997 to November 1999.

The final terms of the settlement call for the payment of $450,000 and the issuance of 375,000 shares of Accelr8 common stock to a settlement fund. Monies were paid to the settlement fund March 4, 2003.

In approving the settlement, the Court noted the difficulties the class faced in proving any right to recovery. David A. Zisser of Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods & Levy, attorney for Accelr8, recommended approval of the settlement, citing the sound business decision to terminate an open-ended litigation expense.

Mr. Geimer characterized the final court approval as "the end of a long battle" and noted that, "in settling the action brought by the SEC the Company was never required to restate its financial results."

Mr. Geimer pointed out that the shareholders of Accelr8 still own a company with significant assets, a viable public market for its securities and a promising new business in the DNA/protein microarraying arena.

ALABAMA: Supreme Court Overturns Class Certification, Injunction ----------------------------------------------------------------Alabama's Supreme Court ruled, in overturning the decision of Circuit Court Judge Daniel King in Bessemer, Jefferson County, that Judge King erred when he granted class action status to the defendants and plaintiffs, and erred as well when he granted an injunction, in the same case, halting video gaming operations across the state without giving the businesses advance notice, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the video machines, but sent the case back to Judge King "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." The court ruled that Judge King should have notified Funliner of Alabama and other video operators in the case before halting operations.

"Under the facts of this case, we have no difficulty concluding that the trial court exceeded its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction in conjunction with the class certification orders," Justice Lyn Stuart wrote for the Supreme Court. "An adverse party must have notice and a hearing in order to adequately oppose a request for a preliminary injunction."

The Supreme Court also ruled that Judge King's certification of the case as a class action was inappropriate because the plaintiffs were trying to recover money they lost individually while playing the video-gaming machines owned or leased by the various defendants.

"We note that, based on the testimony before the trial court, there appears to be little, if any, evidence available to establish objectively who has played the video-gaming machines owned or leased by the defendants or when those persons might have played the machines," Supreme Court Judge Stuart wrote.

"There also appears to be little documentation, if any, to establish the amount of the players' claimed losses," wrote Judge Stuart.

Judge King's order of class certification certified as plaintiffs in the case citizens anywhere in the state who had spent money playing any video-gaming machines owned or leased by defendants in the case. Judge King also certified as separate defendant classes those who own or operate video-gamingmachines, and those who lease such machines to Alabama businesses.

Ralph "Buddy" Armstrong, attorney for defendants, said his clients are pleased with the Supreme Court's ruling, which, in effect, kills the lawsuit, because it means each person wanting to sue the arcade owners would have to file individual lawsuits.

ANNUITY & LIFE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT----------------------------------------------------------------Annuity & Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. faces several securities class actions filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 12, 2001 and November 19, 2002, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The suit also names as defendants:

(1) Frederick S. Hammer,

(2) Lawrence S. Doyle and

(3) John F. Burke

The complaint charges Annuity and Life Re (Holdings), Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors with issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the class period, as alleged in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the Company's increasing revenues and financial performance, an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

No assurance can be given that the Company will not be required to pay monetary damages in connection with these lawsuits.

AOL TIME: Faces Three Lawsuits For ERISA Violations in S.D. NY--------------------------------------------------------------AOL Time Warner, Inc. faces three putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and former participants in the AOL Time Warner Savings Plan, the AOL Time Warner Thrift Plan and/or the Time Warner Cable Savings Plan. The suits also name as defendants certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers and members of the Administrative Committees of the Plans.

The lawsuits allege that the Company and other defendants breached certain fiduciary duties to Plan participants by, inter alia, continuing to offer AOL Time Warner stock as an investment under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things, that AOL Time Warner was experiencing declining advertising revenues and that AOL Time Warner was inappropriately inflating advertising revenues through various transactions. The suits also allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and request unspecified damages and unspecified equitable relief.

The actions have been consolidated with other AOL Time Warner-related shareholder lawsuits and derivative actions. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these cases or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

AXEDA SYSTEMS: NY Court Dismisses Officers, Directors From Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Axeda System, Inc.'s officers as defendants in the consolidated securities class action filed against them, the Company and several investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased Company stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against one or both of the Company and the individual defendants.

The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15, 1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.

Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding inthe Southern District of New York. Certain of the Company's employees were members of the putative classes alleged in these actions.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against the Individual Defendants and it. The court later dismissed the individual defendants from the case without prejudice.

The Company believes that the lawsuit and claims are withoutmerit and that it has worthwhile defenses to the actions. The Company plans to vigorously defend the litigation. However, failure to successfully defend this action could substantially harm its results of operations, liquidity and financial condition.

BOEING WICHITA: Judge Grants Certification to Sex Bias Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------US District Court Judge Wesley Brown, in Wichita, Kansas, has issued an order certifying as a class action the lawsuit brought by 12 women alleging sexual discrimination at Boeing, thereby clearing the way for the suit to proceed to trial on behalf of 4,800 local female workers, the Wichita Eagle reports. A trial date has not been set.

The lawsuit claims that the women were denied promotions, pay raises or other employment opportunities because of their gender. The lawsuit also alleges that some male co-workers verbally harassed the women, subjecting them to crude derogatory remarks. The lawsuit also alleges that the Company ignored complaints and that many of its managers and supervisors are not effectively policed and often not disciplined.

The lawsuit asks for an order halting the alleged discriminatory actions. It also seeks back pay and compensatory and punitive damages. Other proposed class actions are pending in California, Oklahoma and Missouri.

Steve Berman, managing partner with Hagens Berman, a Seattle law firm representing plaintiffs in various state class actions said, "We have abundant evidence that paints a very compelling picture. Unfortunately, it is not a very pretty picture if you are a woman looking for equality at Boeing."

BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: To Settle TX Suit Over Wilderness Tires ----------------------------------------------------------------Bridgestone Corporation's Firestone unit, based in Nashville, Tennessee, said it has agreed to settle a Texas class action over its recall of Wilderness AT and ATX tires more than two years ago, the Houston Chronicle reports. Firestone said the details of the settlement are still being worked out and will not be publicly disclosed until the agreement between the parties receives court approval.

This is the first time Firestone has agreed to settle a class action stemming from the August 2000 recall of 6.5 million allegedly defective tires. Similar lawsuits are pending in many other states.

In Texas, plans tentatively call for creation of a national settlement class, which would effectively extend the agreement's terms to all US consumers, according to attorney Zona Jones of the Provost Umphrey law firm in Beaumont.

Tire owners, who got free replacement tires, will be compensated for their inconvenience and other costs. The settlement will not affect hundreds of personal-injury lawsuits still pending over rollover accidents involving tread separation.

Federal authorities, however, have linked the tires, mostly installed on Ford Motor Co. Explorers, with 271 deaths and hundreds of injuries. Most of the personal-injury lawsuits have been settled out of court.

BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery To End September 2003 in CA Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Central District of California has set discovery cut-off for the consolidated securities class action filed against Broadcom Corporation for September 5,2003.

From March through May 2001 the Company and several of its executives were served with a number of complaints, brought as purported securities class actions, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suits were later consolidated.

The suit charges the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Chief Technical Officer and Chief Financial Officer with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that motion was granted by the court in March 2002.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint and plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2002. In May 2002 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which motion was denied in July 2002. The Company answered the seconded amended complaint in September 2002.

This case is now in discovery. The Court also set the case for a pre-trial conference on December 5, 2003. The Company believes the allegations in the consolidated suit are without merit and is defending the action vigorously.

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: DE Stock Lawsuit Stayed Over Related Action----------------------------------------------------------------The consolidated class action filed against CableVision Systems Corporation and each of its directors was stayed pending the resolution of a related action filed by one of the plaintiffs.

The suit, filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, alleges breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock. The suit was filed on behalf of all holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock. The actions seek to:

(1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock;

(2) enjoin any sales of Rainbow Media Group assets, or, in the alternative, award rescissory damages;

(3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award rescissory damages;

(4) award compensatory damages, and

(5) award costs and disbursements

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action. The action is currently stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related action brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of certain books and records of the Company. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to contest the lawsuits vigorously.

CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Chordiant Software, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) and hundreds of other companies, individuals and IPO underwriters.

The plaintiffs allege that Chordiant, certain of its officers and directors and its IPO underwriters violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that Chordiant's registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of limitations with respect to Chordiant's officers and directors until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement, our officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit without prejudice.

In February 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against Chordiant and almost all of the other company defendants and denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against Chordiant and many of the company defendants.

The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.

CORNELL COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in TX----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against Cornell Companies, Inc. and officers Steven W. Logan, and John L. Hendrix, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The consolidated suit was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002. The suit involves disclosures made concerning two prior transactions executed by the Company: the August2001 sale leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The consolidated compliant seeks, among other things, restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and expert fees.

The court granted Flyline Partners, LP's motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff. The Company believes that it has good defenses to each of the plaintiffs' claims and intends to vigorously defend against each of the claims.

COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiff Appeals Stock Lawsuit Dismissal---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities, including common stock and notes, during the period from April 19, 2000 to May 24, 2001. The relief sought includes monetary damages and equitable relief.

The Company and the officer and director defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with counsel for the lead plaintiffs in this litigation that tentatively resolves the litigation. The MOU sets forth the terms upon which the Company, the officer and director defendants and the plaintiffs agree to settle the litigation.

Pursuant to the MOU, the plaintiffs agreed to support and vote in favor of the Plan if it provided for the distribution of $16,500 in cash to be funded by the Company's insurance carriers and 6,495,844 shares of the Company's common stock. The plaintiffs voted in favor of the plan.

The settlement provided for in the MOU was subject to the approval of the court. The court later issued its final judgment and dismissal order. One class member has filed an appeal pertaining to the final judgment, but this appeal only relates to the allocation of the settlement proceeds between the plaintiffs and their attorneys.

COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Dropped as Defendant in NY Securities Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the securities class actions filed against Covad Communications Group, Inc. dismissed the Company as defendant. The suits are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of purported classes of stockholders and also names as defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors and some of the underwriters in the Company's stock offerings.

These lawsuits are so-called IPO allocation cases, challengingpractices allegedly used by certain underwriters of public equity offerings during the late 1990s and 2000. On April 19, 2002 the plaintiffs amended their complaint and removed the Company as a defendant. Certain directors and officers arestill named in the complaint. The plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose the arrangements that some of these underwriters purportedly made with certain investors.

The Company believes it has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to contest them vigorously. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable and there is no guarantee it will prevail.

CRITICAL PATH: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Critical Path, Inc., certain of itsformer officers and directors and underwriters connected with its initial public offering of common stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased common stock at the initial public offering of common stock between March 26, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The complaints allege generally that the Prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts andcommissions received by the underwriters.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other individuals. Defendants stayed pretrial motions and discovery pending a ruling on a motion to dismiss the claims. On February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion refusing to dismiss claims against the defendants in the case, except in certain limited circumstances that did not apply to the Company or its then officers and directors.

CUMULUS MEDIA: Securities Agreement Distributed to Class Members----------------------------------------------------------------The settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against Cumulus Media, Inc., certain present and former directors and officers of the Company, and certain underwriters of the Company's stock has been distributed.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock during various time periods between October 26, 1998 and March 16, 2000. Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, and Sections 11 and 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that defendants issued false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material factsconcerning, among other things, the Company's financial condition, given the restatement on March 16, 2000 of the Company's results for the first three quarters of 1999.

On May 20, 2002, the court approved a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement pursuant to which plaintiffs agreed to dismiss each claim against the Company and the other defendants in consideration of $13 million and the issuance of 240,000 shares of the Company's Class A Common Stock.

Upon court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement Agreement, a measurement date was reached with respect to the Company's Class A common stock to be issued under the settlement, and the stock portion of the settlement liability will no longer be adjusted each reporting period for changes in the fair value of the Company's Class A common stock.

The Company had previously funded the $13 million cash portion of the settlement on November 30, 2001. Of the $13 million funded cash portion of the settlement, $7.3 million was provided under the Company's preexisting insurance coverage. Of the 240,000 shares of Class A common stock to be issued under the settlement, 60,000 shares were initially issued in June 2002, 32,849 shares were issued during the first quarter of 2003and the remaining 147,151 shares are expected to be issued by the end of June 2003.

On January 14, 2003, the court issued an order authorizing thesettlement agent to distribute the cash and shares to the class members. As a result, the cash portion of the settlement was distributed by the settlement agent to the class members in February 2003.

DIGITAL RIVER: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Digital River, Inc. and certain of the Company's s officers and directors.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of the Company's officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO) violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies. On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York. Judge Scheindlin held an initial case management conference on September 7, 2001, at which time she ordered, among other things, that the time for all defendants in the IPO Lawsuits to respond to any complaint be postponed until further order of the court. Thus, the Company has not been required to answer any of the complaints, and no discovery has been served on the Company.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the issuers (amongothers). On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and directors until September 30, 2003.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and almost all of the other issuers and denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and many of the other issuers.

DUPONT: Plaintiffs in Pollution Lawsuit Fight To Remove Judge-------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a class action alleging that a chemical producedby DuPont's Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia, has contaminated residents' water supplies, are fighting the company's attempt to remove the judge now presiding over the lawsuit, the Charleston Gazette reports.

DuPont's recently filed motion argues that Wood County Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill should recuse himself because he lives in the allegedly contaminated area and has "a potential economic interest in the outcome of the trial." The plaintiffs have said that the company has known for more than a year where Judge Hill lives, but did not raise the issue until just days before another hearing in the case.

"Instead, DuPont sat back and experimented with Judge Hill to see how he would rule on DuPont's arguments and, after it became clear that Judge Hill would not tolerate DuPont's double talk on the facts and efforts to delay this case through repeated discovery abuses and frivolous motion practice, DuPont evidently decided it was time to get rid of Judge Hill," plaintiff's motion in response said.

The residents sued DuPont in August 2001, claiming the company'sWashington Works plant contaminated drinking water supplies by releasing the chemical ammonium perfluorooctanoate, or C-8, which is used to make Teflon and other products. DuPont's scientists and officials have said there are no known health effects from the chemical, which the company has used for more than 50 years.

On April 10, Judge Hill ruled that C-8 is toxic and hazardous to humans and allowed the lawsuit to proceed. Then, on April 18, Judge Hill ordered DuPont to pay for the testing for those residents who want to determine how much C-8 is in their bodies.

"Because this case is scheduled for trial in less than four months, allowing DuPont to effectively stay this case at this late date by raising such clearly frivolous and knowingly waived disqualification claims now, would be extremely prejudicial to plaintiffs and should not be permitted," the plaintiffs' motion says.

HMO LITIGATION: Aetna's Pact With Doctors to Affect Other Suits---------------------------------------------------------------Aetna Inc. recently agreed to pay $170 million to settle a class action by over 700,000 doctors who said the company's business practices cut payments to physicians and interfered with appropriate patient care. Aetna broke ranks with eight other health insurers named in the class action, making it the first of the defendant insurers to reach agreement with the doctors, the Charleston Gazette reports.

The doctors said the settlement, which also creates new paymentprocedures, as well as the cash payout, will pressure the otherdefendants to reach similar agreements. The accord with Aetna also created a foundation to engage in activities to improve health care.

In a statement, lawyers for the eight remaining health insurers said they intend to continue the litigation with the doctors and "defend the case vigorously." The lawyers also said they expect the class certification to be overturned on appeal, which would cause the case to "lose most, if not all, of its significance."

The settlement reached between Aetna and the 700,000 doctors still has to be approved by the US District Court in Miami, where Judge Federico Moreno maintains jurisdiction over the lawsuit brought against the nine health insurers. The lawsuit alleges that the insurers used their coercive economic power to force doctors into unfavorable contracts, and used pay schemes to reduce the amount of care given patients, including, among other things, appropriate tests and referrals to specialists.

Clearly, the conflict between insurers and the physicians will not disappear soon, the Charleston Gazette reported. For example, the Connecticut Medical Society recently filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Miami, against the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and its 41 members, accusing them of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The lawsuit charges the Blue Cross plans with short-changing the doctors and intruding in patient care.

INTEGRATED INFORMATION: NY Court Dismisses in Part Stock Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed against Integrated Information Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors and the members of the underwriting syndicate involved in the Company's initial public offering. The suit generally alleges that:

(1) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of the Company's initial public offering to their customers in exchange for higher than standard commissions on transactions in other securities;

(2) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of our initial public offering to their customers in exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase additional shares of Company Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices;

(3) the Company and the Individual Defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933; and

(4) the Individual Defendants violated section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

In July 2002, the Company, as part of the group of issuers of shares named in the consolidated litigation and the Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Underwriter Defendants filed motions to dismiss as well.

Also in July 2002, the plaintiffs offered to dismiss the Individual Defendants, without prejudice, in exchange for a Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement from each Individual Defendant. All of the Individual Defendants in the Company's suit have entered into such an agreement.

On November 1, 2002, the Court heard oral arguments on the motions to dismiss, and in February 2003, the Court dismissed the section 10(b) claims against the Company but allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the remaining claims.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter.

INTERCEPT INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA----------------------------------------------------------------InterCept, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of individuals who purchased the Company's common stock between September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003. The suit also names as defendants:

(1) John W. Collins,

(2) G. Lynn Boggs,

(3) Scott R. Meyerhoff, and

(4) former officer Garrett M. Bender,

The plaintiff has alleged that InterCept and the individual defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omitted tomake material disclosures throughout the class period due to their false assurances that the adult entertainment portion of the Company's s merchant services business was insignificant and their failure to disclose the impact of the implementation of new Visa regulations in November 2002. The plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering.

The suit asserted, among other things, that Company's initial public offering registration statement contained misstatements and/or omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering to the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the court entered an order dismissing without prejudice the claims against the Company and its officers and directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter defendants). On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other allegations, the underwriters&' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering and the disclosures contained in the Company's registration statement.

The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies in connection with the underwriting of their public offerings. On July 15, 2002, the Company together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.

In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice. In February 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims against the Company and virtually all of the other issuer defendants under the registration provisions of the securities law may proceed. The court also ruled that the claims under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a majority of the other issuer defendants.

The Company along with several other issuer defendants has notified the court that it intends to seek reconsideration of the court's ruling as to the claims under the antifraud provisions. The Company and its officers and directors believe that the allegations in the lawsuit against them are without merit. The litigation process is inherently uncertain andunpredictable, however, and there can be no guarantee as to the ultimate outcome of this pending litigation. The Company is currently unable to estimate any potential loss associated with this matter.

MAINE: Fails To Follow Court Order To Improve Mental Services -------------------------------------------------------------The state of Maine has failed to comply with the numerous requirements of a 12-year-old court order to improve services for patients at the Augusta Mental Health Institute, Superior Court Judge Nancy Mills said in her recently issued 354-page decision, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Judge Mills said state officials not only failed to meet the terms of the AMHI consent decree, but that they should have acknowledged their failure. "This is not a failure of funding. The evidence made clear that until the recent budgetary problems, money for consent decree purposes was consistently provided by the Legislature. This is the failure of management to get the job done," Judge Mills wrote.

State officials signed the consent decree in 1990, to settle a class action complaining of deteriorating and dangerous conditions at the state psychiatric hospital. The state has been held in contempt of court by two different judges formissing deadlines to make improvements in the mental health system.

MUSIC INDUSTRY: Settlement Ruling Expected In CD Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge plans to rule soon on the proposed settlement of a music antitrust lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of 43 states, which accused major record labels and large music retailers of conspiring to set the minimum music prices, the Lexington Herald Leader reports. The conspiracy was engaged in by the music industry, according to the lawsuit, to counter the competition from discount retailers like Target and Wal-Mart.

Judge D. Brock heard testimony recently for more than three hours on the fairness of the agreement that calls for music distributors and retailers to pay $143 million in cash, as well as compact discs. Of the total settlement, $75.7 million would be distributed in the form of 5.6 million CDs sent to libraries and schools throughout the nation.

The proposed cash settlement in the case totals $67.3 million. The actual cash distributed to consumers is expected to be around $44 million, and would, roughly, put $12.60 in the pockets of 3.5 million consumers. The remaining cash will be expended on attorney fees and distribution costs.

Attorneys representing the named defendant companies declined to testify in court. The named defendants are:

(1) Sony Music Entertainment,

(2) EMI Music Distribution,

(3) Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation,

(4) Universal Music Group,

(5) Bertelsmann Music Group,

(6) Tower Records,

(7) Musicland Stores and

(8) Transworld Entertainment

The payout, if approved, would resolve an antitrust lawsuit started by prosecutors in the several states in 1996.

OMAI GOLD MINES: Labels as "Unfounded" Suit Over Cyanide Spill--------------------------------------------------------------Canadian mining company Cambior Inc, which owns a majority in the Omai Gold Mines Ltd., called "unfounded" a class action asking $2 billion in damages over a massive spill of cyanide-tainted water into the Essequibo River, the main waterway of the South American country of Guyana, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, recently filed in Guyana's High Court, also alleges that the Omai Gold Mines continue to discharge harmful waste into the Essequibo River. However, Cambior has said that Omai Gold monitors the water quality along the river and discharges only treated waste that is harmless. Cambior said in a recent statement that it considers the class action unfounded andfrivolous and will contest it vigorously.

The company has until May 29 to file a defense in court. If it does not, the prosecution can then ask the court to make a ruling, said Peter Britton, one of the lawyers who filed the case on behalf of 23,000 people living along the Essequibo.

The lawsuit charges Omai Gold and its shareholders, including majority share holder Cambior Inc., with negligence in allowing a dam to collapse in 1995, which resulted in the pouring of 764million gallons of cyanide-tainted slurry into the river. The lawsuit says the river is still tainted and its fish contaminated. The residents have no scientific evidence, however. The company has said it completed its cleanup and continues to monitor waste levels in the river.

The August 1995 spill lasted five days until engineers could bring it under control. Huge numbers of fish and other marine life were killed and drinking water had to be trucked in for hundreds of villages and wildlife dependent on the river and its tributaries.

Omai Gold produces about 70 percent of Guyana's annual average gold production and employs more than 700 workers.

PDI INC.: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------PDI Inc. asked the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, its chief executive officer andits chief financial officer.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit also asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder.

The suit purports to state claims against the Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002. The suit alleges that the Company intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading public statements and omissions concerning its financial condition and prospects with respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection with the October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, its marketing of Lotensin in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement with Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, as well as its marketing of Evista in connection with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli Lilly& Co.

The Company asked for the suit's dismissal under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Company believes that the allegations in this purported securities class action are without merit and intends to defend the action vigorously.

PDI INC.: Enters Joint Defense Agreement For Baycol Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------PDI Inc. entered into a joint defense and indemnification agreement with Bayer Pharmaceuticals over several lawsuits, including two class actions, alleging claims arising from the use of the prescription compound Baycol that was manufactured by Bayer and co-marketed by the Company on Bayer's behalf under a contract sales force agreement.

In August 2001, Bayer announced that it was voluntarily withdrawing Baycol from the US market. To date, the Company has defended these actions vigorously and has asserted a contractual right of indemnification against Bayer for all costs and expenses the Company incurs relating to these proceedings. The Company expects that additional lawsuits might be filed.

In February 2003, the Company entered into a joint defense and indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer has agreed to assume substantially all of the Company's defense costs in pending and prospective proceedings, subject to certain limited exceptions. Further, Bayer agreed to reimburse the Company for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred to date in defending these proceedings. The Company is currently in discussions with Bayer regarding additional legal fee reimbursements, however, no agreement has been reached and therefore no additional amounts have been accrued to-date.

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Securities Lawsuit Moves To Discovery in CA----------------------------------------------------------------The consolidated securities class action filed against Providian Financial Corporation is moving into discovery after the United States District Court for the Northern District of California refused to dismiss the suit. The suit also names as defendants the Company and certain of its executive officers and/or directors.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false and misleading statements concerning its operations and prospects for the second and third quarters of 2001, in violation of federal securities laws. The suit was filed on behalf of persons or entities who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 18, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company, a consumer lender, and three of its top officers misled the investing public during the class period because, by changing the way in which bankruptcy losses were processed, recognition of over $30 million of charge-offs was deferred until the second quarter of fiscal year 2001. The way in which this change was implemented violated generally accepted accounting principles and SEC rules and permitted defendants to understate the Company's net charge-off rate and perpetuate the representation of its continued earnings per share growth.

The suit also alleges that the corporate officers sold almost $22 million of their personal holdings during the class period, while the Company's share price was artificially inflated. Ultimately, on October 18, 2001, the Company was forced to admit that it would not post any earnings per share growth. On this news, the Company's share price fell to less than $5.00 per share, a drop of over 90% from its class period high of $59.95 per share.

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $86M Settlement in CA 401(K) Suit --------------------------------------------------------------Providian Financial Corporation has reached an $8.6 million settlement for the consolidated class actions filed against it and certain of its executive officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who were participants or beneficiaries of its 401(k) Plan since July 17, 2001, allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by encouraging participants to invest in the Company's common stock, and restricting sales of the common stock held under the Plan, at a time when the common stock was an unsuitable Plan investment.

The parties have agreed to settle this litigation on a classwide basis for $8.6million, which will be funded by our insurance carriers. The settlement received preliminary approval from the court in April 2003.

SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted approval to the settlement proposed by Sagent Technology, Inc. to settle the consolidated securities class action filed against it on behalf of purchasers of its common stock between October 21, 1999 and April 18, 2000.

The claims allege that the Company misrepresented its prospects for 1999 and the first quarter of 2000. Thereafter, the court consolidated the complaints and selected a lead plaintiff and counsel.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which the court granted. However, the court gave the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. In December 2001, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Company then filed a motion to dismiss that complaint on February 15, 2002.

The hearing on the motion was held on June 3, 2002. On June 5, 2002, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

The Company has moved to strike certain portions of that complaint on the grounds that those particular allegations were dismissed by the court from the prior complaint. On August 26, 2002, the court sustained the Company's motion to strike certain portions of the complaint.

The parties have settled the lawsuit. The Company's $5.5 million contribution to the settlement was funded by its directors' and officers' insurance carriers.

SAGENT TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiffs Won't Amend Securities Fraud Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed against Sagent Technology, Inc. notified the United States District Court for the Northern District of California they were standing on the complaint without further amendment.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock between May 11, 2001 and November 28, 2001. The suit alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's restatement of its condensed consolidated financial statements for the first and second quarters of 2001, resulting from a fraud scheme perpetrated on us by a former employee who falsely claimed to have made sales of the Company's products to the federal government.

On September 11, 2002, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a notice of their intent to stand on the complaint, without further amendment. The court has not yet ruled on this.

SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Reaches Agreement in Vacation Intervals Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. reached a mediated settlement for the class action filed by plaintiffs who each purchased Vacation Intervals from the Company, in Texas state court.

The suit alleged that the Company violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Timeshare Act by failing to deliver to them complete copies of the contracts for the purchase of the Vacation Intervals as they did not receivea complete legal description of the Hill Country Resort as attached to the Declaration of Restrictions, Covenants, and Conditions of the Resort. The plaintiffs also claimed that the Company violated various provisions of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act with respect to the maintenance fees charged by the Company to its Vacation Interval owners.

In November 2002, the court denied the plaintiff's request for class certification. In March 2003, additional plaintiffs joined the case, and a fourth amended petition was filed against the Company and Silverleaf Club alleging additional violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. The class allegations were also deleted from the amended petition.

In their fourth amended petition, the plaintiffs sought damages in the amount of $1.5 million, plus reasonable attorneys fees and court costs. The plaintiffs also sought rescission of their original purchase contracts with the Company.

The Company, Silverleaf Club, and the plaintiffs have agreed to a mediated settlement of the claims. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company and Silverleaf Club have agreed to paythe plaintiffs an aggregate sum of $130,000, and the plaintiffs have agreed to convey their Vacation Intervals back to the Company and have agreed to dismiss the action against the Company and Silverleaf Club with prejudice.

SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Working For Settlement in TX Consumer Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Silverleaf Resorts faces a purported class action was filed against the Company by a couple who purchased a Vacation Interval from the Company in Texas state court.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company violated the Texas Government Code by charging a document preparation fee in regard to instruments affecting title to real estate. Alternatively, the plaintiffs allege that the $275 document preparation fee constituted a partial prepayment that should have been credited against their note and additionally seek a declaratory judgment. The petition asserts Texas class action allegations and seeks recovery of the document preparation fee and treble damages on behalf of both the plaintiffs and the alleged class they purport to represent, and injunctive relief preventing the Company from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in connection with the sale of its Vacation Intervals in Texas.

The Company has been vigorously contesting the plaintiffs' claims and believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' allegations. However, the Company is attempting to settle the plaintiffs' claims through continuing settlement negotiations. If the matter cannot be settled in a manner acceptable to the Company, the Company will continue to vigorously defend itself against plaintiffs' claims.

STRATUS SERVICES: Named as Defendant in RSI Employee Wage Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Stratus Services Group, Inc. was named as one of several defendants in a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County against RSI Home Products, Inc., one of its customers. The suit alleges:

The Company has engaged California counsel to represent it in such proceedings; the time to file an Answer has been extended to June 6, 2003 for all defendants. The amount of plaintiff's claim against all defendants is not yet reasonably determinable or quantifiable.

TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The District Court for Clark County, Nevada approved the settlement proposed by Technical Olympic USA, Inc. to settle a class action filed in relation to its announcement in March 2001 of a proposed merger with Engle Homes, Inc.

Another separate suit was filed in the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The suits challenged the merger as a breach of fiduciary duty. Two interveners filed interventions in the Texas class action.

In March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of the class actions and interventions. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $350,000 in the aggregate. The settlement was subject to a number of conditions, including the closing of the merger, providing notice to the class, conducting confirmatory discovery, executing a definitive settlement agreement and obtaining final approval by the court. The parties originally contemplated that the settlement would be consummated in the Texas action.

In the third quarter of 2002, the parties learned that theanticipated Texas forum was unavailable due to a prior dismissal. On April 28, 2003, the court entered an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement relating to the Nevada action.

TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set November 2003----------------------------------------------------------------Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against Terayon Communications Systems and certain of its officers and directors is set for November 4, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between November 15,1999 and April 11, 2000, alleged that the defendants had violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding the Company's technology.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated suit. After defendants' motion had been fully briefed and argued, the court issued an order granting in part defendants' motion andgiving plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. The defendants then moved to dismiss this new complaint and oral argument on the motion occurred on December 17, 2001.

On March 29, 2002, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. The parties are now in the discovery process. In addition, the court has certified the plaintiffs' proposed class.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief. The Company considers the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these allegations. However, the litigation could prove to be costly and time consuming to defend, and there can be no assurances about the eventual outcome.

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's September 21, 2001 secondary offering of common stock in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements in the Company's prospectus issued in connection with the secondary offering. The suits further alleges that the defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the Company during the class period of June 5, 2000 through January 2, 2001.

The suits were later consolidated and by court order dated December 3, 2001, Radiant Advisors, LLC was designated as lead plaintiff and the law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP were designated as co-lead counsel for the consolidated actions. Plaintiff filed a single amended complaint on September 13, 2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 8, 2002. On February 7, 2003, the court issued an order denying in part and granting in part, with leave to amend, the Company's motion to dismiss. On March 10, 2003, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against the Company, certain of its current officers and directors, and the underwriters of theCompany's September 21, 2000 secondary offering of stock alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's secondary offering in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of1933.

TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of stock as well as its secondary offering of stock.

The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased common stock in the initial public offering and the secondary stock offering between January 31 and December 6, 2000. The complaint alleges generally that the prospectuses under which such securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and commissions received by the underwriters.

The case has been coordinated for pre-trial purposes with over 300 cases raising the same or similar issues and also currently pending in the Southern District of New York. On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss. On July 15, 2002, the Company, collectively with the other issuer defendants, also filed an omnibus motion to dismiss.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motions to dismiss with respect to substantially all of the plaintiffs' claims, including those against the Company. Limited discovery is currently underway.

VERTICALNET INC.: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed against Verticalnet, Inc., several of its officers and directors and four underwriters involved in the issuance and initial public offering of the Company's common stock in February 1999:

(1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

(2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

(3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company LLC and

(4) WIT Capital Corporation

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, based on, among other things, claims that the four underwriters awarded material portions of the initial shares to certain favored customers in exchange for excessive commissions.

The plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters engaged in a practice known as "laddering," whereby the clients or customers agreed that in exchange for IPO shares they would purchase additional shares at progressively higher prices after the IPO. With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company and its officers and directors failed to disclose in the prospectus and the registration statement the existence of these purported excessive commissions and laddering agreements.

This amended complaint contains additional factual allegations concerning the events discussed in the original complaints, and asserts that, in addition to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, the Company and our officers and directors also violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act in connection with the IPO.

In addition to this amended and consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit and in the hundreds of other similar suits filed against other companies in connection with IPOs that occurred in the late 1990s have filed "master allegations" that primarily focus on the conduct of the underwriters of the IPOs, including the Company's IPO.

On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, the claims against the individual Verticalnet officers and directors who had been named as defendants in the various complaints. In February 2003, the court entered an order denying a motion made by the defendants to dismiss the actions in their entirety, but granting the motion as to certain of the claims against some defendants. However, the court did not dismiss any claims against the Company.

The Company has retained counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in connection with the allegations raised in the amended and consolidated complaint. In the opinion of management, the ultimate resolutions with respect to these actions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

WARNER COMMUNICATIONS: ERISA Violations Suit Transferred to NY --------------------------------------------------------------The class action filed against Warner Communications, Inc., AOL Time Warner, Inc. and three former employees of certain subsidiaries of AOL Time Warner has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York from the Central District of California. The suit also names as defendants:

(1) Time Warner Entertainment, Inc.,

(2) WEA Corporation,

(3) WEA Manufacturing Inc.,

(4) Warner Bros. Records,

(5) Atlantic Recording Corporation, and

(6) various pension plans sponsored by the companies and the administrative committees of those plans

Plaintiffs allege that defendants miscalculated the proper amount of pension benefits owed to them and other class members as required under the plans in violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Due to the preliminary status of this matter, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this suit.

The class actions allege that the employees' 401(k) retirementplans containing Westar Energy stock fell in value last fall when the company restated earnings and disclosed it had been subpoenaed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over "meaningless" trades with Cleco Corporation.

About 30 Westar employees have filed lawsuits in US District Court claiming the company's retirement plan suffered "tens of millions of dollars in losses" because substantial assets of the plan were imprudently invested in Westar stock. The lawsuits were filed against Westar Energy and:

(1) David Wittig, former chairman, chief executive officer and president,

(2) Paul Geist, former chief financial officer and treasurer,

(3) Bruce Akin, current vice president for shared services,

(4) Larry Irick, corporate secretary and general counsel and

(5) "unknown fiduciary defendants."

The lawsuits claim the company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by issuing false and misleading statements to the market between March 31, 2001, and December 26, 2002, the class period.

Westar stock is among the investment alternatives available to employees who enroll in the company's 401 (k) plan. The company matches 50 per cent of each participant's contributions that are six percent of the participants' salary or less.

"The stock (in Westar Energy) still has critical value and the company still has value," said Ronald Pope said. "We are just critical of the way they managed the 401(k) under the previous management."

*Treaty For Worldwide Regulation of Tobacco Products Approved-------------------------------------------------------------In a recent landmark move, health officials from 192 nations unanimously approved a global health treaty, the first of its kind, that could change the face of the global tobacco industry, the Christian Science Monitor reports.

To slow the spread of smoking, especially in the poor nations, where smoking rates are soaring, the World Health Organization in Geneva, voted for unprecedented and potentially deep restrictions on tobacco products. The treaty must still be implemented by governments worldwide, which must pass laws regulating everything from the size of health warnings on the pack of cigarettes to restrictions on secondhand smoke.

In Hong Kong, the dance CDs put out by Marlboro might disappear. In Vietnam, umbrellas with "Salem attitude" painted across them might be sent to the trash. The cafes in Kiev that display the Camel logo would have to change their names. Implementation could also mean that some nations will ban the use of theterms "light" or "low tar" as misleading."

"This treaty has the potential to save literally tens of millions of lives over the next 25 years," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

The treaty is called the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control(FCTC). It is controversial within the tobacco industry itself.However, Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, has said it is in favor of the treaty.

"What we hope and expect is that this treaty can be a catalyst in every country that signs on for meaningful and effective treatment of tobacco," said Mark Berlind, associate general counsel for Altria.

On the other hand, British American Tobacco, the parent of US-based Brown & Williamson, said in a statement that it had "mixed" views of the treaty. The British company likes the strong provisions against smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes. However, it denounces the ban on advertising, giving as its reason for disapproval that consumers willnot be able to get information on potentially safer cigarettes under development.

The treaty has been under negotiation for the last three years. During much of that time, the United States was perceived as being against a tough crackdown. Katharine Mulvey, executive director of In Fact, an activist nongovernmental organization, termed the US position as "obstructionist." However, the United States has finally decided to back the treaty.

If President Bush signs the treaty, he will forward it on to the US Senate for ratification. Congress would have to pass implementing legislation. The US successfully inserted language that exempts nations from implementing the treaty except within their constitutional limits. The US Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that certain forms of tobacco advertising are constitutionally protected as free speech, and the US would therefore under the language inserted in the treaty be within the treaty if it refused to ban tobacco advertising that was protected under the Supreme Court's decision.

The WHO treaty is vague about suing tobacco companies. A provision lets each country decide on the basis of their own laws what to do about liability under its laws.

Some people doubt that the US Senate will even ratify the treaty. They point to the requirements like warning labels that cover almost one-third of a cigarette pack, and a provision that states that public health takes priority over commercial interest. The lobbying against the treaty will be intense in Washington, say observers of the national scene.

"This will be one more treaty the United States does not ratify," said Clyde Prestowitz, author of a new book, "Rogue Nation," who is president of the Economic Strategy Institute in Washington. "The United States has spent a lot of effort and a lot of time trying to open markets to tobacco."

According to WHO, the treaty is needed urgently. "In the absence of a strong treaty like this, the estimate is that the number of smokers will rise to 1.6 billion smokers in 20 years," said Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Many of these will face death as a result of their smoking; WHO estimates nearly five million smokers die from smoking-related causes each year. By 2020, WHO estimates that figure will grow to 10 million without the help of the treaty to stem the rise in smokers; 70 percent will be in the developing nations. "This treaty is the closest thing we have to a vaccine against tobacco-caused death in the developing world," said Mr. Myers.

ACCREDO HEALTH: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in TN---------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Accredo Health, Inc. (NasdaqNM:ACDO) securities between June 16, 2002 and Aril 7, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Accredo and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Accredo provides specialized contract pharmacy and related services pursuant to agreements with biotechnology drug manufacturers relating to the treatment of patients with certain costly, chronic diseases.

The complaint charges that during the class period, defendants caused Accredo's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements. The true facts, which were known by the defendants but actively concealed, were:

(1) The Company's Q4 02 to Q2 03 results were grossly overstated. Prior to the Company's acquisition of the Specialty Pharmaceutical Services (SPS) division of Gentiva Health Services, the Company was reserving 12% of gross patient receivables as an allowance for doubtful accounts. After completing due diligence of SPS in May/June 2002, defendants realized that if they revealed the truth about the consolidated receivables it would negatively impact the Company's receivables and net income;

(2) The Company's hemophilia product line was not tracking with the Company's projections. This product line was very material to the Company as it represented 30% of the Company's gross revenue and was the Company's highest gross margin business line (35%-40% vs. consolidated margins of 20%); and

(3) As a result of the above, the Company's fiscal 2003 revenue projections of $1.45 billion and EPS projections of $1.33-$1.38 were grossly inflated.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: ACDO@bernlieb.com.

ALLOU HEALTHCARE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY--------------------------------------------------------------Weiss & Yourman lodges a securities class action against certain of its officers of Allou Healthcare, Inc. (AMEX:ALU), Mayer Rispler & Company, Arthur Andersen LLP and KPMG LLP was commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Allou securities between June 22, 1998 and April 9, 2003.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. It alleges that defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations that caused plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase Allou securities at artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Moshe Balsam or Jack I Zwick by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com

BLUE RHINO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Blue Rhino Corporation (NasdaqNM:RINO) from August 15, 2002 through February 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market between August 15, 2002 and February 5, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Blue Rhino securities. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's operations and financial results.

In particular, the complaint alleges that defendants' statements were materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented:

(1) that the 10 distributors acquired on November 22, 2002, which included Platinum Propane LLC and Ark Holding Co., LLC, were not healthy, highly profitable, and independent of the Company as portrayed by Blue Rhino. In fact, on a combined basis, these distributors had lost $2.8 million in the first ten months of 2002 and owed Blue Rhino $5 million in cash advances in addition to their $2.8 million of debt. Also, one of the acquired distributors (Platinum) was in violation of its debt covenants for 2001;

(2) that the Company misrepresented that the purchase price of this acquisition only totaled $21 million when in fact the true price of the acquisition was $32 million;

(3) that the Company was beginning to see a decline in earnings from the Overfill Protection Device (OPD) regulations;

(4) that the Company's earnings projections were lacking in any reasonable basis when made; and

(5) that the false and misleading information disseminated by the defendants caused Blue Rhino's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.

On February 5, 2003, the Company filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. Therein, the Company for the first time, and contrary to its previous statements, disclosed that the true acquisition price paid by the Company for the 10 distributors in November 2002 was $32 million; that the acquired distributors had a net loss of $2,804,000; and that the acquired distributors were not healthy, highly profitable, and independent of the Company. News of the Company's 8-K filing shocked the market on February 6, 2003. On that day, shares of the Blue Rhino fell $1.56 or 11% to close at $12.59, down from its previous day close of $14.15.

CREDIT SUISSE: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA---------------------------------------------------------------Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action against Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), a subsidiary of Credit Suisse Group (NYSE:CSR), on behalf of persons who purchased Winstar, Inc. common stock from January 5, 2001 through April 5, 2001, inclusive in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that CSFB violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing analyst reports setting a $79 per share target price that lacked a reasonable basis and rating Winstar a "strong buy" without adequately disclosing the significant risks of investing in Winstar, including that Winstar needed to raise more than $3 billion to fund its business plan and that it might not be able to raise the necessary funds.

The complaint further alleges that CSFB touted its "independent research" but failed to disclose that it actually used its analyst reports to obtain lucrative fees for its investment banking business. The Securities Exchange Commission recently filed a complaint against CSFB for issuing analyst reports in 2001 concerning Winstar that lacked a reasonable basis and failed to adequately disclose the risk of investing in Winstar and for violations of NASD and NYSE regulations.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan, or Liz Hutton, Paralegal, by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax: (617) 439-0134, or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.

FLEMING COMPANIES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in TX----------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of Fleming Companies, Inc. (NYSE:FLM) in connection with the public offering dated June 17, 2002.

In connection with the offering, Fleming issued 9.2 million shares of common stock at $19.40 per share and $200 million in Notes. The Fleming Securities were sold pursuant to a registration statement and prospectus, as amended, which contained false and misleading statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made therein not misleading.

The Registration Statement materially misstated the Company's financial results of operation in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) by, among other things, including financial statements that misrepresented and/or omitted facts concerning the Company's unauthorized deductions on invoices received from vendors, which reduced recognition of expenses associated with the cost of goods sold and understated accounts payable, the lengthened amortization period for long-term assets, and lack of control over costs.

Defendants also represented that Fleming's retail operations were profitable at a time when the Company was, in fact, losing money on its retail business and was in the process of divesting itself of those operations. Defendants presented sales figures for Fleming's retail operations such that Fleming's same store sales appeared to be increasing when they were actually declining.

In addition, at the time of the Offering Fleming had been shipping undesirable and unsaleable merchandise from its distribution operations to its failing retail outlets in order to boost its distribution business earnings, while using its retail operations as a dumping ground for product that under GAAP should have been substantially written down or written off entirely.

On July 30, 2002, less than two months after defendants sold more than $378 million worth of the Fleming Securities to the public, Fleming issued a release announcing that, contrary to the prior positive statements contained in the Registration Statement, Defendants were in fact evaluating strategic alternatives for dealing with the Company's money-losing retail operations. The market's reaction to this news was swift and severe; Fleming's stock price fell more than 30% to $10.76 per share on August 2, 2002.

On September 5, 2002, The Wall Street Journal ran an expose of Fleming's practices of taking excessive and unauthorized deductions on the amounts it owed to vendors. The article confirmed that certain senior Fleming insiders had resisted engaging in the improper accounting practices and that some vendors were refusing to ship to Fleming because of disputes with Fleming over its improper accounting practices. Fleming's stock price dropped 30% in response to these revelations to just $6.51 per share on September 9, 2002, while the Fleming Notes declined approximately 10%. Thus, in two months, Fleming's stock price lost approximately 65% of its value as the truth regarding the Company's financial condition and its retail operations became known.

Then, on January 14, 2003, Fleming further confirmed the falsity of the Registration Statement when it announced in "a progress report on the divestiture of its price-impact retail operations" that it was marking down the realizable value of its retail stores by $116 million "to adjust the carrying value of retail assets to their estimated net realizable value."

On January 23, 2003, Fleming announced a $190 million loss on its discontinued retail operations (including impairment of $115.3 million). On April 1, 2003, Fleming filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy code. Currently, Fleming's common stock trades below $.25 per share, while the Fleming Notes trade at a discount of approximately 16% of the price that they sold to the public.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: FLM@bernlieb.com.

J. JILL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA Court----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired J. Jill Group, Inc. (NasdaqNM:JILL) securities between February 12, 2002 and December 4, 2002, inclusive. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the Company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone: 215-886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net

NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of NorthWestern Corporation (NYSE: NOR) from August 2, 2000 through December 13, 2002, inclusive.

The suit alleges that NorthWestern, a provider of value-added energy and communications services, and certain of its officers and directors issued materially false and misleading statements concerning NorthWestern's business condition. Specifically, defendants misrepresented the Company's revenue and earnings by maintaining insufficient reserves for accounts receivable at NorthWestern's communications subsidiary Expanets, and by failing to make full disclosure of problems with the implementation of a new information technology infrastructure.

On December 13, 2002, defendants disclosed that the earnings would be significantly less than the estimates for 2002. According to the press release, NorthWestern would need to increase its reserves "by at least $50 million" and financial results for 2002 could not be reported until a year-end audit was completed. On this news, the Company's stock plummeted 37%, from the previous day's close.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, PC by Phone: (800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.

REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: REGN) between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, inclusive, against the Company and certain officers of the Company.

During the class period, Regeneron initiated and completed Phase II and Phase III clinical studies of its drug AXOKINE for the treatment of obesity. Defendants claimed that the Phase III study would demonstrate that patients in the study who were administered AXOKINE over a one year period would lose more weight than those patients administered a placebo. Defendants led the public to believe that as a consequence, AXOKINE would be more effective in treating obesity than other competing products and would generate sales of more than $500 million annually.

However, 73.5% of the patients taking AXOKINE developed antibodies. The consequence of the antibodies was to neutralize or reduce the effectiveness of AXOKINE, thereby dramatically reducing the number of potential patients that could possibly be treated by AXOKINE.

On March 31, 2003, as a result of the market's awareness that antibodies had significantly impacted the efficacy and marketability of AXOKINE, the price of Regeneron shares dropped immediately and closed down 56.5% from the previous day. Over the next few weeks Regeneron shares would settle having declined 64%, for a market capitalization loss of approximately $464 million.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory Nespole, Christopher Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Regeneron.

ROBERTSON STEPHENS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Stock Suit in CA----------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Robertson Stephens, Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired Redback Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RBAK) securities between June 14, 1999 and March 8, 2000, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Robertson Stephens and its analyst Paul Johnson issued materially false and misleading public statements, research reports and "Buy" recommendations on Redback and praised the acquisition of Siara Systems, Inc. (Siara) by Redback while failing to disclose that Johnson owned Siara stock and that the acquisition would result in a multimillion windfall for Johnson.

The complaint also alleges that, based on defendants' recommendations and failure to disclose Mr. Johnson's conflicts of interest, Redback securities sold at artificially inflated prices during the class period. As a result, Plaintiff and the rest of the class purchased their Redback shares at prices that were artificially inflated and were damaged thereby.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: RBAK@bernlieb.com.

*********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.